fish4brains, my point exactly. I'm sure the 1 year old was taunting and hitting the dogs to force the attack. The reports from the neighbors (with the one whose chihauhau )sp? was killed 2 days prior to this attack. Makes it sound more and more like the "typical" owner in most of these cases where they stick up for the dogs rights over those of the human or other animal victim.
The arguement here should not be finding fault with the parent or guardian (although the guardian was at fault) but as to why people are allowed to have these types of dogs and why they don't have to have a hugh insurance policy to cover them if they do. The insurance policy should have to be "per" dog . If you deem it necessary to have 7 such dogs, you should have to pay dearly for that , just like if you can't keep from drinking and driving. Why should anyone be in fear of being attacked on thier own property because some idiot believes he has the "right" to have a vicious animal running around? Just my opinion and you have the right to disagree, but will never convince me it is okay for these types of dogs to be free to roam at will.